9 comments:

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I want to hope that the subject matter of "we think these historical figures were gay, and here are the gay-relevant contributions made to society by them" is so thin that it won't crowd out much math or grammar.

But I guess they could gin something up about recent progress of the gay rights movement. If there really are history textbooks out there that have more on Clinton than on Washington, then anything's possible.

Kind of makes me want to get on the committee that writes those semistandardized tests that high school seniors have to pass in order to receive an endorsed diploma. I'd include one question: "How did Marie Curie's tacit lesibanism contribute to her work with radium?" Any answer other than "it didn't" meets with failure.

If American kids can't read, write, or do math properly, how can they possibly be expected to know about the gay people in history? You can't learn a subject if you don't know how to read the materials presented.

Me again. I find this propogation of stereotypes really hurtful. I don't know what chiffon is, much less what is so "fabulous" about it. How would you feel if you were a man, attracted to other men, and you saw this sort of thing on a blog that's supposedly run by your brother in Christ? Would it make you feel loved and accepted by the Church, or would you feel like the Church cannot look beyond your sins?

Well, if you'd like to talk about that, I certainly could. Firstly, I'd suggest that there's not a "gay lobby", so much as there is a need for cultural sensitivity. Frankly I don't really see anything wrong with teaching LGBT history, especially considering the amount of prejudice and violence that still occurs against queer people. As a fellow Catholic, I'm sure you agree with the Church's insistence that "any sign of unjust discrimination in their [LGBT people's] regard should be avoided". The cultural contributions of someone with SSA should be recognized on the same level as anyone else's, right?

My point is that you don't have to think homogenital acts are morally permissible, but if you really are secure in your faith you should have no problem recognizing the cultural and historical achievements of people of different sexual orientations. I would hardly call that "cultural destruction"

As for "crying about stereotypes," I assure you no tears have been shed this evening on my part, although your caricaturization certainly did hurt my feelings.

As a fellow Catholic, I'm sure you agree with the Church's insistence that "any sign of unjust discrimination in their [LGBT people's] regard should be avoided". The cultural contributions of someone with SSA should be recognized on the same level as anyone else's, right?-------------------------------Sure, I agree with the Church's stand on "unjust" discrimination. But we, I'm sure, would disagree on just what would constitute "unjust". Should they have legal protections based on this disorder? No. Should those who trumpet this disorder be marginalized by society? Yes. Today's culture has embraced deviancy in all it's forms. Should those who disagree with this be silent? I don't think so.

The effort to "recognize" people specfically based on their disordered inclination is simply an attempt to "normalize" that which is abnormal. The gay lobby, which exists despite your protestations to the contrary, knows full well that presenting deviancy as normal (especially to the young) over and over and over again will eventually desensitize them to this deviancy. Hence, deviancy becomes the new normal. All you have to do is look at popular culture to see the fruition of those efforts.

I know this is old but gay history??? Thats kind of dumb. It would be equally dumb to mandate heterosexual history. What does a person's being gay have anything to do with contributions to history. Lets pretend for 1 second that they will claim Lincoln was a homosexual. In what way does that change the course of history?